The main legal point established is that a person must engage in the business of acting as a courier as contemplated under the regulations to qualify as an Authorized Courier, and outsourcing of activities must maintain the integrity of the business.

JUDGMENT :

Vibhu Bakhru, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 15.09.2017 (hereafter 'the impugned order'), whereby respondent no.3 (Chief Commissioner of Customs) has rejected the petitioner's appeal against an order dated 27.01.2017 passed by respondent no.2 (Commissioner of Customs (General)). By the said order, respondent no.2 had revoked the Authorized Courier License (License No. DEL/POL/COUR/12/2014) granted to the petitioner. In addition, respondent no.2 had also directed forfeiture of the security amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and further imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000/- under Regulation 14 of the Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations, 2010.

2. The petitioner is a sole proprietorship concern of Sh. Surender Kumar Sharma. His registration as an "Authorized Courier" was revoked on the ground that he did not qualify to be an "Authorized Courier" within the meaning of Regulation 3(1)(b) of the Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations, 2010 (hereafter "the 2010 Regulations") and Regulation 3(a) of the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 (hereafter " the 1998 Regulations").

3. The principal controversy involved in the present petition is whether the petitioner falls within the definition of an Authorized Courier under the 1998 Regulations and the 2010 Regulations and whether the petitioner has complied with his obligations under those Regulations. The principal allegation against the petitioner is that he is not performing functions of a courier but is merely acting as a Custom Clearing Agent. The petitioner disputes the same and states that all non-core functions relating to pick-up or local delivery of export/import courier packages/ shipments and housekeeping activities are not necessarily required to be performed by an Authorized Courier and the same can be outsourced. He claims that outsourcing of such activities does not render the petitioner ineligible for being considered as an Authorized Courier.

4. The petitioner is engaged in the business of acting as a courier since the year 2014. The petitioner claims that he enjoys a good reputation in the market. The petitioner applied for and was granted license as an Authorized Courier under the 2010 Regulations and 1998 Regulations. The said license dated 05.11.2014 was valid for a period of two years and expired on 30.09.2016.

5. The petitioner claims that he has vast experience and expertise and has created an infrastructure by entering into Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) with various parties overseas.

6. The petitioner states that on 01.05.2015, he submitted a letter dated 30.04.2015 seeking permission under Regulation 13(j) of the 1998 Regulations for outsourcing various services. According to the petitioner, the same was necessary to complete the process of door to door delivery of packages / shipments.

7. The petitioner states that thereafter, it entered into a MoU dated 14.05.2015 with M/s Budget Courier Private Limited (hereafter "Budget") for the purposes of augmentation of his business. The petitioner submitted a copy of the said MoU to respondent no.2 on 14.01.2016 as an addendum to the application dated 30.04.2015 under Regulation 13(j) of the 1998 Regulations, which was filed by the petitioner for seeking permission to outsource non-core operations. Subsequently, on 18.02.2016, the petitioner entered into a fresh MoU with Budget in terms of which Budget took over the business of the petitioner. This was also communicated to respondent no. 2 under cover of a letter dated 18.02.2016.

8. Subsequently, an audit/inspection team was deployed to conduct an audit/inspection of the records of the petitioner. The said team reported that it appeared that the petitioner was doing work only of custom clearance, and most of the other operations as well as delivery system were controlled by Budget. On examination of the said report, it appeared that